₦airaland Forum

President Bola Tinubu has given the United States District Court for the District of Columbia four reasons why his unredacted records with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency should not be released to the public.

The President, in fillings made by his lawyers and published on Saturday, noted that the US Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act precluded disclosure and there was no public interest in the matter.

Tinubu also said there was no public interest to balance and the plaintiff had ulterior motives for demanding documents with his name on them.

His lawyers were identified as Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi.

The President’s submission was in response to a request by an American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, which sought the disclosure of the records under the US Freedom of Information Act.

But opposition parties in the country kicked against the move, saying Nigerians deserved to know about the President’s past.

The controversy

The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s US law-enforcement history became a major issue in the build up to the February 25, 2023 presidential election after documents relating to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding surfaced.

A US District Court in Illinois had ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name after the US alleged that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in prohibited financial transactions.

The All Progressives Congress, however, maintained during the presidential election petition proceedings that the case was a civil forfeiture proceeding and not a criminal conviction.

The Labour Party and then presidential candidate Peter Obi argued that the forfeiture amounted to a disqualifying conviction under the Constitution.

The Presidential Election Petition Court held in September 2023 that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu was arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.

Ever since, the opposition and other interested parties have been making moves to get official information relating to Tinubu from the US.

The President’s reasons

Greenspan had argued that his requests concerned the “sitting President of Nigeria…” and “a nation of over 230 million people whose daily lives are directly affected by President Tinubu’s decisions”.

In his rejection of the FOIA request, Tinubu, according to the filings by his lawyer, urged the US District Court to reject the bid because it amounted to an attempt to obtain private information for political purposes in Nigeria.

The President’s lawyers noted that the request was made to provide access to information about government activities.

They specifically rejected the argument that the interest of Nigerians in Tinubu’s background constituted public interest recognised by US laws.

The team also rejected an argument on the President’s fitness for office, stating that “the asserted ‘public interest in Tinubu’s own fitness for office’ is not an interest FOIA recognises or one that needs to be balanced.”

The lawyers further argued that the records sought were protected by privacy provisions under FOIA and the US Privacy Act.

“The redacted information sought by the plaintiff is exempt from disclosure,” they stated, citing Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records.

The President’s legal team relied on a 1989 US Supreme Court decision, Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to argue that FOIA was designed to allow the public to know “what the government is up to” rather than provide access to information about private citizens.

They argued that Greenspan was seeking “disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files,” which, they said, “reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.”

'Records being sought for Nigerian politics’

Tinubu’s lawyers also challenged what they described as the political dimension of the request, arguing that Greenspan’s filings demonstrated a focus on obtaining documents containing the President’s name.

"All of plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of plaintiff’s overarching goal,” the lawyers stated.

They added that Greenspan’s filings “overwhelmingly demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with intervenor’s ‘name on them.’”

The President’s legal team urged the court not to allow the FOIA process to become a means of obtaining information about a private individual simply because of his political position.

“If this court finds that the plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with the intervenor’s name on them,’” the lawyers stated.

They further challenged claims that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.

The team described such claims as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The lawyers added, “Unsubstantiated allegations are easy to assert in filings, but insufficient to justify a request for information about an individual.”

They stated that Greenspan had failed to provide evidence capable of establishing that alleged government wrongdoing had occurred, as required by US case law.

“Plaintiff has not carried his burden to obtain law enforcement records that mention or identify a private individual,” they stated.

Tinubu seeks continued withholding

The President’s legal team also disputed the argument that his privacy interests had been extinguished because some information relating to the historical investigation had previously become public.

Greenspan had argued that the general nature of the investigation had been in the public domain since 1993.

But Tinubu’s lawyers said the 1993 forfeiture proceeding, including an affidavit filed in the case, did not disclose details or the outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving the President.

The lawyers maintained that even where portions of information had previously appeared in public records, an individual could retain a privacy interest in details that remained undisclosed.

They consequently asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and withholding of the records.

Among the records sought are the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records involving him from 1992 to 1993.

In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to lift their “Glomar” responses, under which the agencies had refused to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed, and directed them to process the requested records subject to applicable exemptions.

The FBI has subsequently sought to keep portions of the records from public disclosure, citing exemptions relating to law-enforcement information, privacy, investigative techniques and the potential safety of individuals.

The ongoing FOIA case concerns access to US government records and does not itself constitute a criminal prosecution or a finding that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.

Kuginzi:
Nathaniel Shaibu and Yusuf Oketola

President Bola Tinubu has given the United States District Court for the District of Columbia four reasons why his unredacted records with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Drug Enforcement Agency should not be released to the public.

The President, in fillings made by his lawyers and published on Saturday, noted that the US Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act precluded disclosure and there was no public interest in the matter.

Tinubu also said there was no public interest to balance and the plaintiff had ulterior motives for demanding documents with his name on them.

His lawyers were identified as Christopher Carmichael, Victor Henderson and Oluwole Afolabi.

The President’s submission was in response to a request by an American transparency activist, Aaron Greenspan, which sought the disclosure of the records under the US Freedom of Information Act.

But opposition parties in the country kicked against the move, saying Nigerians deserved to know about the President’s past.

The controversy

The controversy surrounding Tinubu’s US law-enforcement history became a major issue in the build up to the February 25, 2023 presidential election after documents relating to a 1993 US civil forfeiture proceeding surfaced.

A US District Court in Illinois had ordered the forfeiture of $460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name after the US alleged that the funds represented proceeds of narcotics trafficking or were involved in prohibited financial transactions.

The All Progressives Congress, however, maintained during the presidential election petition proceedings that the case was a civil forfeiture proceeding and not a criminal conviction.

The Labour Party and then presidential candidate Peter Obi argued that the forfeiture amounted to a disqualifying conviction under the Constitution.

The Presidential Election Petition Court held in September 2023 that the petitioners had failed to establish that Tinubu was arrested, arraigned, convicted or sentenced in a criminal case in the US.

Ever since, the opposition and other interested parties have been making moves to get official information relating to Tinubu from the US.

The President’s reasons

Greenspan had argued that his requests concerned the “sitting President of Nigeria…” and “a nation of over 230 million people whose daily lives are directly affected by President Tinubu’s decisions”.

In his rejection of the FOIA request, Tinubu, according to the filings by his lawyer, urged the US District Court to reject the bid because it amounted to an attempt to obtain private information for political purposes in Nigeria.

The President’s lawyers noted that the request was made to provide access to information about government activities.

They specifically rejected the argument that the interest of Nigerians in Tinubu’s background constituted public interest recognised by US laws.

The team also rejected an argument on the President’s fitness for office, stating that “the asserted ‘public interest in Tinubu’s own fitness for office’ is not an interest FOIA recognises or one that needs to be balanced.”

The lawyers further argued that the records sought were protected by privacy provisions under FOIA and the US Privacy Act.

“The redacted information sought by the plaintiff is exempt from disclosure,” they stated, citing Exemption 7(C), which protects personal information contained in law-enforcement records.

The President’s legal team relied on a 1989 US Supreme Court decision, Department of Justice v Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, to argue that FOIA was designed to allow the public to know “what the government is up to” rather than provide access to information about private citizens.

They argued that Greenspan was seeking “disclosure of information about private citizens that is accumulated in various governmental files,” which, they said, “reveals little or nothing about an agency’s own conduct.”

'Records being sought for Nigerian politics’

Tinubu’s lawyers also challenged what they described as the political dimension of the request, arguing that Greenspan’s filings demonstrated a focus on obtaining documents containing the President’s name.

"All of plaintiff’s other critiques should be viewed in the context of plaintiff’s overarching goal,” the lawyers stated.

They added that Greenspan’s filings “overwhelmingly demonstrate that his singular focus is obtaining documents with intervenor’s ‘name on them.’”

The President’s legal team urged the court not to allow the FOIA process to become a means of obtaining information about a private individual simply because of his political position.

“If this court finds that the plaintiff cannot use FOIA to mine information in government files about a private individual, he should not be able to access documents with the intervenor’s name on them,’” the lawyers stated.

They further challenged claims that the records could reveal a secret prosecution or an agreement by US authorities not to prosecute Tinubu.

The team described such claims as speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The lawyers added, “Unsubstantiated allegations are easy to assert in filings, but insufficient to justify a request for information about an individual.”

They stated that Greenspan had failed to provide evidence capable of establishing that alleged government wrongdoing had occurred, as required by US case law.

“Plaintiff has not carried his burden to obtain law enforcement records that mention or identify a private individual,” they stated.

Tinubu seeks continued withholding

The President’s legal team also disputed the argument that his privacy interests had been extinguished because some information relating to the historical investigation had previously become public.

Greenspan had argued that the general nature of the investigation had been in the public domain since 1993.

But Tinubu’s lawyers said the 1993 forfeiture proceeding, including an affidavit filed in the case, did not disclose details or the outcome of any possible criminal investigation involving the President.

The lawyers maintained that even where portions of information had previously appeared in public records, an individual could retain a privacy interest in details that remained undisclosed.

They consequently asked the court to deny Greenspan’s motion for summary judgment and allow the FBI and DEA to maintain their redactions and withholding of the records.

Among the records sought are the “entire FBI file” on Tinubu and FBI Form 302 interview records involving him from 1992 to 1993.

In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ordered the FBI and DEA to lift their “Glomar” responses, under which the agencies had refused to confirm or deny whether responsive records existed, and directed them to process the requested records subject to applicable exemptions.

The FBI has subsequently sought to keep portions of the records from public disclosure, citing exemptions relating to law-enforcement information, privacy, investigative techniques and the potential safety of individuals.

The ongoing FOIA case concerns access to US government records and does not itself constitute a criminal prosecution or a finding that Tinubu committed a drug-trafficking offence.

https://punchng.com/four-reasons-us-shouldnt-release-my-fbi-records-tinubu/

CharlesCNG:
On April 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell handed Aaron Greenspan - David Hundeyin Partner- an important victory. She ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer use a blanket “Glomar” response — refusing even to confirm or deny whether investigative records concerning Bola Tinubu existed. Why?

Because the U.S. Justice Department had already publicly acknowledged, through the old 1993 forfeiture filings, that Tinubu was one subject of a wider criminal investigation involving the FBI and DEA.

moscow007:
Nigerians should brace for impact, Because if they eventually determine that this file will be released no matter what they do, they might try to pull off a grand national tragedy that could distract people from the main news.

In an attempt to obscure such a monumental indicting news a stronger news will be manufactured.

SalamRushdie:
This is the kind of character some people are supporting

BATified2023:
Tinubu get sense pass all of u

He will keep u busy with this till he wins again n after winning he will tell them to release it so u can know u are phuuuls

aswani:
Morning, have you got any proof at all that this went past a glomar response?

Have you got any documentation showing this ruling against the "blanket" glomar response as I have searched high and low and asked repeatedly?

Also when did the US government publicly acknowledge this "subject of a wider criminal offence" thing, was it at a press conference or via a press release?

I am genuinely int in these information and my dear friend Ottersberger is too as it would help our ongoing discussion on another thread.

Thank you for your anticipated help.

SalamRushdie:
At your age see what you are supporting like a secondary school student ogbeni have some shame ..I hope you go fit buy your kids full chicken today make dem chop Sunday rice

CharlesCNG:
YES — FBI and DEA originally issued Glomar responses. YES — Judge Howell expressly ruled those Glomar responses improper and ordered them lifted.

YES — Judge Howell held that DOJ had officially acknowledged Tinubu as one subject of the wider investigation and ordered the FBI and DEA to process responsive non-exempt records. But keep the calendar in view.

PulaPower:
Una go make up story taya 🤣

SalamRushdie:
This is the kind of character some people are supporting

ogolemati:
so Una agbero chairman has been a drug baron before.chai what a country that rewards kingpin with leadership